Sam Bradford could be "catastrophic" says Dilfer (2 Viewers)

[Bri]

(Not the first to suggest it but) I like the Suh then McCoy in the 2nd plan

 

[Matt Waldman]

You can talk about "building from the trenches" forever but if the Rams draft Suh they will win 2 or 3 games again and still have no QB.

You could make the same argument against drafting a QB with Detroit and Stafford last year. The Jets have clearly built from the trenches. Sanchez was very much icing on that cake as a rookie last year. San Diego originally built from the trenches, let Rivers develop, and his past two seasons started to work well as the trenches need "re-trenching." Hasselbeck, Brady, Warner, Schaub, Henne, and Romo are all examples of players not drafted early that developed over time. Heck Aaron Rodgers fell out of round one and he might be the most promising QB in the league right now.

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

Dilfer also talked up Aaron Rodgers and, from what I gather, was kind of a mentor to him.

Of course they were both California guys who were coached by the same guy.

But Rodgers' agent is... guess!

(I don't think this is a big deal though and it's kind of depressing to think Dilfer felt he had to call MIKE FLORIO.)

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

You can talk about "building from the trenches" forever but if the Rams draft Suh they will win 2 or 3 games again and still have no QB.

You could make the same argument against drafting a QB with Detroit and Stafford last year. The Jets have clearly built from the trenches. Sanchez was very much icing on that cake as a rookie last year. San Diego originally built from the trenches, let Rivers develop, and his past two seasons started to work well as the trenches need "re-trenching." Hasselbeck, Brady, Warner, Schaub, Henne, and Romo are all examples of players not drafted early that developed over time. Heck Aaron Rodgers fell out of round one and he might be the most promising QB in the league right now.

As you may or may not have read in this thread, I am in the camp that Suh is indeed the No. 1 pick but hoping he slides to NO. 2.I'm hoping that the Rams recently went with Howie Long Jr. and that really didn't or hasn't worked out like they wanted. Although I think Rams fans might think Suh is the best player available, I'm not sure how exciting or popular of a pick that will be considering they have nothing at QB. I'm hoping that kind of thought process goes through the minds of the Rams War Room.

 

[JamesTheScot]

Does Dilfer working with Colt McCoy affect his opinion of Bradford?

I don't get that either. I'm assuming the ESPN blogger felt compelled to mention it to cover up any sense of impropriety, as though Dilfer was somehow doing his agent a solid by suggesting the Rams should draft McCoy. It's funny you mentioned that last line because when I copied and pasted the article, I ALMOST left out that line but then figured someone might say, "Wood, why didn't you mention the part where it said Dilfer has the same agent as McCoy." Ultimately I think Dilfer's comments about Bradford should be taken on their own.

You've got to disclose that relationship. Dilfer doesn't have to be a shill for the agent and McCoy, he could be 100% sincere in his assessment but be biased nonetheless.And you can't escape the comparative atmosphere of the QB vetting process and say that Dilfer's evaluation of Bradford isn't colored by his relationship with McCoy. Ask a GM fan about their opinion on Toyota's and you can't simply assume that there is no prejudice involved. The very fact that he broke them all three down on film should show us that it was destined to be a comparative process. You can't escape that influence.

I'm not saying that Dilfer is biased. I don't know. I respect his opinion. But his relationship with McCoy could very well color his evaluation of Bradford in subtle ways, particularly in terms of exactly how much one should be concerned about Bradford's college system. No one disputes that it's a question mark, but opinions differ significantly on how big a question mark it is.

 

[Don Quixote]

You can talk about "building from the trenches" forever but if the Rams draft Suh they will win 2 or 3 games again and still have no QB.

And then have pick of Locker, Luck, or Mallett next year. I think I'd rather have Suh and QB next year.

 

[Dexter Manley]

I guess the thing that always impressed me is that Bradford never appeared to be the "one (as in read) and run" type spread option QB like a Tebow or Graham Harrell. Yes he had a first option that was quite often open and he was on the money more often than not. But contrary to a lot of spread QBs, Bradford didn't tuck and run but rather kept the play alive with his feet and kept his options open always looking downfield. And he seemed very, very accurate to me when throwing on the run. That's huge from what I can tell (which isn't much!).

Graham Harrell wasn't a runner; in '08, he had 5,111 yards and 45 TDs on 626 attempts, against just 9 INTs; he had 41 rushes for -15 yards (sacks count as rushes in college football).Bradford had 4,720 yards and 50 TDs on 483 passes, against just 8 INTs; he had 42 rushes for 47 yards. Neither guy was sacked very often, but Bradford did run more often (sometimes designed) than Harrell at least in '08.

Harrell wasn't the best comparison. My bigger point is that it looked to me like Bradford was much more aware of what was going on when a play breaks down than your typical spread QB.

He isn't a typical spread QB. OU doesn't exclusively run a spread offense. It runs many power formations: I-formation, 3 TEs. He was under center alot. They rolled him out some.

Yea, most people miss this fact. He doesn't have to start from ground zero learning how to operate under center like the Tim Tebows of the world.My biggest concern with Bradford is that he didn't have to face much pressure in college and he's not going to be running a hurry up offense where he can look over to the sideline before every snap.I thought he struggled in the Florida game when the refs disrupted the Sooners offense early on with many delays and he wasn't able to get into rhythm. I also didn't think he handled Gator pressure very well either. He's going to be facing pressure like that in every NFL game.

 

[IDrinkyourMilkshake]

You can talk about "building from the trenches" forever but if the Rams draft Suh they will win 2 or 3 games again and still have no QB.

And then have pick of Locker, Luck, or Mallett next year. I think I'd rather have Suh and QB next year.

If they wait one more year after that they can draft Matt Barkley. I don't know I'm not a fan of the whole "wait until next year and draft QB _____" Two years ago I'm sure a lot of people were saying "Draft Chris Long and wait on Matthew Stafford next year". Last year I'm sure a lot of people were saying "Draft Jason Smith and wait on Sam Bradford next year". The Rams don't have any long term solution at QB. If they think Bradford is a franchise QB, than they should take him.

 

[Honda]

You can talk about "building from the trenches" forever but if the Rams draft Suh they will win 2 or 3 games again and still have no QB.

And then have pick of Locker, Luck, or Mallett next year. I think I'd rather have Suh and QB next year.

If they wait one more year after that they can draft Matt Barkley. I don't know I'm not a fan of the whole "wait until next year and draft QB _____" Two years ago I'm sure a lot of people were saying "Draft Chris Long and wait on Matthew Stafford next year". Last year I'm sure a lot of people were saying "Draft Jason Smith and wait on Sam Bradford next year". The Rams don't have any long term solution at QB. If they think Bradford is a franchise QB, than they should take him.

Thinking like that would get coaches and GMs fired faster than they already do. I doubt any of them are thinking this way.

 

[Christo]

What does Dilfer know? Well, he's played the position and studied the players. Dilfer said he has watched every 2009 snap from all three quarterbacks -- two and three times in some cases -- using a template he developed with input from Mike Holmgren, Brian Billick, Jim Zorn and others.

So what's that? The equivalent of one game for Bradford? I guess Trent couldn't be bothered with looking at 2008.ETA - Trent's never struck me as being very smart. Maybe he was watching Landry Jones without knowing it.

In my previous post, I mentioned that Dilfer discussed this on Cowherd the week after Bradford's injury. IIRC he said then that he had looked at film of every one of Bradford's 2008 snaps. I think you are way off base on this.

I don't know what you heard and when. I was just commenting on the claims made in the article.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Heck Aaron Rodgers fell out of round one and he might be the most promising QB in the league right now.

Aaron Rodgers was drafted #24 overall, in the 1st round

 

[Christo]

I guess the thing that always impressed me is that Bradford never appeared to be the "one (as in read) and run" type spread option QB like a Tebow or Graham Harrell. Yes he had a first option that was quite often open and he was on the money more often than not. But contrary to a lot of spread QBs, Bradford didn't tuck and run but rather kept the play alive with his feet and kept his options open always looking downfield. And he seemed very, very accurate to me when throwing on the run. That's huge from what I can tell (which isn't much!).

Graham Harrell wasn't a runner; in '08, he had 5,111 yards and 45 TDs on 626 attempts, against just 9 INTs; he had 41 rushes for -15 yards (sacks count as rushes in college football).Bradford had 4,720 yards and 50 TDs on 483 passes, against just 8 INTs; he had 42 rushes for 47 yards. Neither guy was sacked very often, but Bradford did run more often (sometimes designed) than Harrell at least in '08.

Harrell wasn't the best comparison. My bigger point is that it looked to me like Bradford was much more aware of what was going on when a play breaks down than your typical spread QB.

He isn't a typical spread QB. OU doesn't exclusively run a spread offense. It runs many power formations: I-formation, 3 TEs. He was under center alot. They rolled him out some.

Yea, most people miss this fact. He doesn't have to start from ground zero learning how to operate under center like the Tim Tebows of the world.My biggest concern with Bradford is that he didn't have to face much pressure in college and he's not going to be running a hurry up offense where he can look over to the sideline before every snap.I thought he struggled in the Florida game when the refs disrupted the Sooners offense early on with many delays and he wasn't able to get into rhythm. I also didn't think he handled Gator pressure very well either. He's going to be facing pressure like that in every NFL game.

He still completed 63.4% of his passes against UF. And it's not like it was a blow out and he was seeing a lot of prevent-D at the end to pump up his numbers. That game was a dog fight all 4 quarters.

 

[Don Quixote]

You can talk about "building from the trenches" forever but if the Rams draft Suh they will win 2 or 3 games again and still have no QB.

And then have pick of Locker, Luck, or Mallett next year. I think I'd rather have Suh and QB next year.

If they wait one more year after that they can draft Matt Barkley. I don't know I'm not a fan of the whole "wait until next year and draft QB _____" Two years ago I'm sure a lot of people were saying "Draft Chris Long and wait on Matthew Stafford next year". Last year I'm sure a lot of people were saying "Draft Jason Smith and wait on Sam Bradford next year". The Rams don't have any long term solution at QB. If they think Bradford is a franchise QB, than they should take him.

I generally agree because never know if will have the opportunity again next year, but I was going off the 2 or 3 wins assumption in the previous post, which would guarantee a Top 3 pick. I view Suh as a HOF-type player, and having watched what Spags did with the Giants' D, I think he'd turn the Rams D into one of the best, if not the best, in the league if he had Suh. I'm not sold on Bradford, but maybe others are more so -- I'd put Bradford below Locker and Luck.

 

[Tau837]

So what's that? The equivalent of one game for Bradford? I guess Trent couldn't be bothered with looking at 2008.

ETA - Trent's never struck me as being very smart. Maybe he was watching Landry Jones without knowing it.

In my previous post, I mentioned that Dilfer discussed this on Cowherd the week after Bradford's injury. IIRC he said then that he had looked at film of every one of Bradford's 2008 snaps. I think you are way off base on this.

I don't know what you heard and when. I was just commenting on the claims made in the article.

Actually, you commented beyond the scope of the article. You said you assume Dilfer couldn't be bothered to look at Bradford's 2008 snaps, which isn't addressed one way or the other in the article. I responded to tell you I believe Dilfer has said previously that he did look at the 2008 snaps. I thought you might care to know that based on your comment, but now it simply seems like you were more interested in criticizing Dilfer.ETA: Trent Dilfer prefers McCoy over Bradford as NFL QB

By Steve Doerschuk

CantonRep.com staff writer

Posted Apr 07, 2010 @ 12:01 PM

Last update Apr 08, 2010 @ 02:08 PM

Trent Dilfer must be seeing Sam Bradford in his sleep.

The ESPN analyst says he watched videotape of every 2008 snap Bradford took as quarterback of the Oklahoma Sooners “not two times ... three times.”

“He’s not even close to the best player in this draft,” Dilfer said.

Bradford is projected as the consensus No. 1 overall pick when the St. Louis Rams kick off the NFL Draft on April 22. In a St. Louis radio interview, Dilfer ranked Bradford, Jimmy Clausen and Colt McCoy as “the big three”

Browns President Mike Holmgren is finalizing a draft plan that could have Cleveland going after one of them, possibly via trading up for Bradford, staying put at No. 7 overall for Clausen or trading down for McCoy. Dilfer believes McCoy could be drafted “in the teens.”

Dilfer and Holmgren don’t necessarily think alike, but Dilfer did play quarterback for Holmgren in Seattle for four years before becoming the Browns’ starting QB in 2005. Plus, Holmgren is the first name Dilfer mentions when he talks of QB gurus who taught him how to study the position.

Dilfer said he also twice watched every snap McCoy took for Texas in 2009, and every snap Clausen took in his Notre Dame career.

Dilfer’s conclusions on:

• McCoy.

“The guy that I think is gonna be the best pro, forecasting this out three or four years, is Colt McCoy. He’s the best leader of the three. He has what I call sauce, that inner will, that drive to be the best.

“A competitive environment brings out the best in him. He has an athletic skill set that gives him a higher ceiling. He has an ability you can’t coach, an ability to extend plays, a suddenness in his body movement.

“He can be very hard to sack. He can get it out quick. He can beat you with his feet on the perimeter. He has way more arm than most people think.

“I’ve worked out with him and thrown with him. But he is a project because he played in a system that didn’t emphasize his talent. The video isn’t what people want to see right now.”

• Bradford.

“I think he will be a good pro one day, but he has major, major challenges ahead of him. Sam Bradford is not Mark Sanchez. He’s not Jason Stafford. He’s not Matt Ryan. I would say he’s not even Joe Flacco.

“He’s a talented kid, very, very raw. He’s a very good passer but there’s major challenges ahead, instinctively, the way he plays the position. He’s not been challenged in the college game. He’s not played the college game even close to what it’s gonna be like in the NFL.

“He looks good in shorts. (He has played) under very little duress in a system that’s remedial, that basically decides for him presnap where he’s going to throw the ball. He makes very few decisions. His accuracy decreases as he has to go through his progressions.”

• Clausen.

“Jimmy Clausen is by far the best quarterback right now. He played the position in college most like it’s going to be played in the NFL. He played under duress. He played in a pro system where he had to handle a lot of information at the line of scrimmage. He’s much sharper in his ability to dissect defenses and make the decisions. He makes all the throws. He’s a tough kid.

“He has limitations athletically. He might be right now as good as he’s ever gonna be ...”

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

I generally agree because never know if will have the opportunity again next year, but I was going off the 2 or 3 wins assumption in the previous post, which would guarantee a Top 3 pick. I view Suh as a HOF-type player, and having watched what Spags did with the Giants' D, I think he'd turn the Rams D into one of the best, if not the best, in the league if he had Suh. I'm not sold on Bradford, but maybe others are more so -- I'd put Bradford below Locker and Luck.

The Rams are still one of the least talented teams in the league. They played hard when I watched them and I'm sure Spags will develop a good defense in time, but for now they stink.If you wait until 2011 to draft a QB, is he even going to play that season? They are far away from building a team like NYJ, Balt., Pitt. etc. where a rookie was able to manage games with limited demands placed on him.You can't just keep eating Top 5 guaranteed rookie deals every year, especially when they aren't all great players. (New CBA could reduce these costs in 2011 but you can't blindly hope for that.)I appreciate the Suh-crew's stance that he'd be more likely to start and contribute to the team right away, and may even be the most talented overall player. But as I have said all off-season I think QB should and will be the Rams' pick.

 

[Lash]

And just to present the other side, as I wrote in another thread, I don't know if present day Peyton Manning would have made the 08 Sooners much better in 11 of their 13 games. Oklahoma went on an absurd streak in the second half of the season where Bradford played like the best QB on the planet, college or pro. I mean, would Manning or Brees on the '08 Sooners score 80 points in a game? I just don't know how you top the sort of production Bradford's offense had.

yesbut seriously, bradford seems like an injury risk and adding the gaudy Oklahoma spread numbers, i'd just like to know what I am getting at #1

bottom line is that STL is under tremendous pressure to pick Bradford because they passed on Ryan and Sanchez back to back years, so they may overlook normal concerns

that was why i was so impressed with Detroit when they selected Calvin Johnson, they screwed up the two years before picking WR busts but they didnt let it deter them when they obviously saw CJ2's talent

say what you want about Millen, he nailed that one

STL isn't following the same line of thinking as DET did

 

[Christo]

So what's that? The equivalent of one game for Bradford? I guess Trent couldn't be bothered with looking at 2008.ETA - Trent's never struck me as being very smart. Maybe he was watching Landry Jones without knowing it.

In my previous post, I mentioned that Dilfer discussed this on Cowherd the week after Bradford's injury. IIRC he said then that he had looked at film of every one of Bradford's 2008 snaps. I think you are way off base on this.

I don't know what you heard and when. I was just commenting on the claims made in the article.

Actually, you commented beyond the scope of the article.

No, I didn't. It says that he looked at 2009 games. It doesn't say he looked at 2008 games.

 

[IDrinkyourMilkshake]

And just to present the other side, as I wrote in another thread, I don't know if present day Peyton Manning would have made the 08 Sooners much better in 11 of their 13 games. Oklahoma went on an absurd streak in the second half of the season where Bradford played like the best QB on the planet, college or pro. I mean, would Manning or Brees on the '08 Sooners score 80 points in a game? I just don't know how you top the sort of production Bradford's offense had.

yesbut seriously, bradford seems like an injury risk and adding the gaudy Oklahoma spread numbers, i'd just like to know what I am getting at #1

bottom line is that STL is under tremendous pressure to pick Bradford because they passed on Ryan and Sanchez back to back years, so they may overlook normal concerns

that was why i was so impressed with Detroit when they selected Calvin Johnson, they screwed up the two years before picking WR busts but they didnt let it deter them when they obviously saw CJ2's talent

say what you want about Millen, he nailed that one

STL isn't following the same line of thinking as DET did

Calvin Johnson is a beast. But If I recall, they were also considering Adrian Peterson and Joe Thomas at that spot. It would have been interesting to see how it would have turned out if they went in that direction.

 

[Jason Wood]

I spoke candidly about Bradford when I did a two round mock a month or so ago, you can search for it. I think St Louis will set the franchise back another 5 years by taking Bradford at #1...they aren't even smart enough to squeeze some blood from Tampa to move up and take Suh who is the best player in this entire draft IMHO. Bradford just happens to have very little competition for a QB job this year. I don't ever see him in game footage ever make completions under pressure, always throwing to wide open WRs with no pass rush on him, he is going ot struggle mightily when he gets to the NFL. I would not put him on Stafford's level at all. None of the Oklahoma QBs have ever amounted to anything int he Stoops era, mostly system guys if you ask me, and I really am stunned Bradford is a slam dunk #1.

This is where I disagree a bit Sean. I'm more in the Matt Waldman/Trent Dilfer camp in thinking highly of Clausen. Much of what Chase just discussed re: Bradford isn't a risk factor for Clausen. He's played in a pro system (one that won some Super Bowls), he played under duress, he made pre-snap reads, he suffered through some tough years. I get that Clausen has a rep for being douchey (whether that's fair or not I can't say), but to me in a draft where people are defending Dez Bryant as being TOO GOOD to pass up, I can't fathom how Clausen shouldn't be worth a serious look. If Clausen falls into Buffalo or Jacksonville's laps, it could really set those franchise back in the right direction IMHO.

I haven't posted much about Clausen and I guess I am on the fence. How is this guy so much better than Quinn at this stage of his career? But as to Bradford, are you saying he's worth the #1 selection?

Fair question. I'm not scout, and guys like Cec, Matt and Sigmund pay MUCH closer attention to the nuances, but to me Clausen is much different from Quinn for the simple fact that Quinn is afraid to throw downfield. That's really the gating factor to his success so far, and it's hard to say whether he can change that. Physically, Clausen is every bit the prototype, he also benefits from an entire career in Weis' system (versus Quinn who blossomed in late exposure to it), and thus I see him as more NFL ready and battle tested. I think we need to be careful about lumping every QB from a program or a coaching system with one another. Carson Palmer isn't Matt Leinart isn't Mark Sanchez. Tee Martin isn't Peyton Manning. Look at the Florida State QBs...we're talking a range from Brad Johnson to Danny Kanell to Charlie Ward.We could ask the same thing about McCoy and Bradford, right? Oklahoma had Jason White and Josh Heupel. The Longhorns had Vince Young, sure, but also had Chris Simms and Major Applewhite.

 

[Tau837]

So what's that? The equivalent of one game for Bradford? I guess Trent couldn't be bothered with looking at 2008.ETA - Trent's never struck me as being very smart. Maybe he was watching Landry Jones without knowing it.

In my previous post, I mentioned that Dilfer discussed this on Cowherd the week after Bradford's injury. IIRC he said then that he had looked at film of every one of Bradford's 2008 snaps. I think you are way off base on this.

I don't know what you heard and when. I was just commenting on the claims made in the article.

Actually, you commented beyond the scope of the article.

No, I didn't. It says that he looked at 2009 games. It doesn't say he looked at 2008 games.

Well now you know.

 

[Dexter Manley]

He still completed 63.4% of his passes against UF. And it's not like it was a blow out and he was seeing a lot of prevent-D at the end to pump up his numbers. That game was a dog fight all 4 quarters.

I know and I still think OU was the better team and should have won that game. It just didn't seem to me like he looked that comfortable handling the pressure, as opposed to a guy like Stafford who had to deal with major pressure most games his last season at Georgia.

 

[Matt Waldman]

You can talk about "building from the trenches" forever but if the Rams draft Suh they will win 2 or 3 games again and still have no QB.

You could make the same argument against drafting a QB with Detroit and Stafford last year. The Jets have clearly built from the trenches. Sanchez was very much icing on that cake as a rookie last year. San Diego originally built from the trenches, let Rivers develop, and his past two seasons started to work well as the trenches need "re-trenching." Hasselbeck, Brady, Warner, Schaub, Henne, and Romo are all examples of players not drafted early that developed over time. Heck Aaron Rodgers fell out of round one and he might be the most promising QB in the league right now.

As you may or may not have read in this thread, I am in the camp that Suh is indeed the No. 1 pick but hoping he slides to NO. 2.I'm hoping that the Rams recently went with Howie Long Jr. and that really didn't or hasn't worked out like they wanted. Although I think Rams fans might think Suh is the best player available, I'm not sure how exciting or popular of a pick that will be considering they have nothing at QB. I'm hoping that kind of thought process goes through the minds of the Rams War Room.

Makes sense.

 

[lyon812]

I've posted why I prefer Suh numerous times elsewhere, so I won't repeat them. But I'm glad to see some thorough discussion of Bradford's merits and flaws after his premature anointing at his pro day.

What also confuses me is that people who are gung-ho about Bradford #1 aren't saying the same thing about Clausen. Perhaps that's a misconception, but it seems to be Bradford or Suh in their minds, not Bradford or Clausen. I think Clausen's starting to become extremely underrated. Really, putting them side by side, it's more tempting to take the one that looks like he could immediately step into an NFL system--particularly one in which he's going to face a lot of defensive pressure--and do well. Bradford has a lot of question marks about him that Clausen's already answered--and as a reminder for those who preach about Bradford's preternatural accuracy, Clausen has obsessively worked on his mechanics--which are excellent--and had a superlative completion rate his senior year.

 

[Christo]

He still completed 63.4% of his passes against UF. And it's not like it was a blow out and he was seeing a lot of prevent-D at the end to pump up his numbers. That game was a dog fight all 4 quarters.

I know and I still think OU was the better team and should have won that game. It just didn't seem to me like he looked that comfortable handling the pressure, as opposed to a guy like Stafford who had to deal with major pressure most games his last season at Georgia.

Stafford v UF in 2008: 18 of 33 for 265 yards (54.5%) 0 TDs 3 Ints. And a lot of that came after UF built up a 21-3 lead.

 

[Honda]

I've posted why I prefer Suh numerous times elsewhere, so I won't repeat them. But I'm glad to see some thorough discussion of Bradford's merits and flaws after his premature anointing at his pro day. What also confuses me is that people who are gung-ho about Bradford #1 aren't saying the same thing about Clausen. Perhaps that's a misconception, but it seems to be Bradford or Suh in their minds, not Bradford or Clausen. I think Clausen's starting to become extremely underrated. Really, putting them side by side, it's more tempting to take the one that looks like he could immediately step into an NFL system--particularly one in which he's going to face a lot of defensive pressure--and do well. Bradford has a lot of question marks about him that Clausen's already answered--and as a reminder for those who preach about Bradford's preternatural accuracy, Clausen has obsessively worked on his mechanics--which are excellent--and had a superlative completion rate his senior year.

I like Clausen a lot. He looks to me like he's improved considerably year to year. I hope he's underrated enough that the Vikings can get the chance to draft him. I think that's a pipe dream, but a guy can hope.

 

[Bob Magaw]

He still completed 63.4% of his passes against UF. And it's not like it was a blow out and he was seeing a lot of prevent-D at the end to pump up his numbers. That game was a dog fight all 4 quarters.

dr. detroit posted in the are sold on bradford thread, about the perception that he coasted in blowouts and blew up at the hint of competition... in 2008, he had his moments against a texas defense with orakpo (did have 2 INTs)... i think they gave up 45 points, though, so that loss wasn't all on bradford. he also noted opponet TCU was a nationally ranked defense, and they scored 35 & won (?).other comments...1 - for the wait till next year school of thought, i wonder if teams with QBs already are more cavalier about how easy it is to get one? what if they draft #6, there are two consensus "franchise" caliber QBs, and only one team needs a QB? than a team like jets trades up to get. OOPS, wait another two years now... and by 2012, maybe rams have better record, draft lower, and miss out again... OOPS, wait another three years... rinse, repeat...2 - clausen's high completion % may not reflect HOW accurate those completions are... numbers are always part of the evaluation, but looking at film, i think bradford has some separation in the DEGREE and LEVEL of accuracy, in terms of enabling WRs to RAC better (true, the risk is accuracy could decrease with pressure?)... i haven't studied clausen closely... does the board think there is an separation between the two here, and if so, minimal or something more exceptional?3 - has anybody seen some of clausen't deep passes go up at an unusually high angle*... trying to determine if some highlights were aberrations and not representative of his larger body of work... if that is the norm, i think some of those passes would be jump balls, and get picked off against NFL secondaries... imo, bradford throws a far prettier and more functional deep ball?4 - i don't think bradford just shot up solely on basis of pro day. as has been pointed out, it probably speaks more to being restored to his previous high stature (not a consensus, but some scouts preferred bradford to stafford and sanchrz - savage stated he might be the best QB in several years)... 5 - suh is such a good prospect, if the team feared there was massive risk in shoulder, it would be no-brainer to take suh (saints too risk with brees, but it isn't like they had to choose him over a draft pick like suh... he was purely additive)... i trust they aren't that concerned for good reason...6 - suh might contribute more next year... but to what... maybe he adds 2-3 games (not a given), and they go from 1 win to 3-4?7 - i realize some here like clausen better, but question if he is as good a prospect... BEFORE his pro day, brandt compared bradford to secretariat in his perceived distancing from rest of class... casserly called something like 15-20 teams, and said it was unanimous that bradford was viewed as the top prospect (don't think he said, secretariat-like in all cases! )...* possible confirmation/corroboration from recent mcshay column..."Next is the way Clausen often throws passes up for grabs into double coverage, often down the middle of the field but also when throwing on the run. One rebuttal to this concern is that Clausen was taught to throw with arc and put air under the ball, but it is a trend that shows up time after time on film, allowing defenders to break up passes."after his highlights, he looked fine... i only saw one play thrown up for grabs... normal trajectory, accurate, nice placement were his WR could make a play but not the defender... i was impressed... his arm looked at least as strong as bradford, and maybe he can even put a bit more zip on it...

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

I spoke candidly about Bradford when I did a two round mock a month or so ago, you can search for it. I think St Louis will set the franchise back another 5 years by taking Bradford at #1...they aren't even smart enough to squeeze some blood from Tampa to move up and take Suh who is the best player in this entire draft IMHO. Bradford just happens to have very little competition for a QB job this year. I don't ever see him in game footage ever make completions under pressure, always throwing to wide open WRs with no pass rush on him, he is going ot struggle mightily when he gets to the NFL. I would not put him on Stafford's level at all. None of the Oklahoma QBs have ever amounted to anything int he Stoops era, mostly system guys if you ask me, and I really am stunned Bradford is a slam dunk #1.

This is where I disagree a bit Sean. I'm more in the Matt Waldman/Trent Dilfer camp in thinking highly of Clausen. Much of what Chase just discussed re: Bradford isn't a risk factor for Clausen. He's played in a pro system (one that won some Super Bowls), he played under duress, he made pre-snap reads, he suffered through some tough years. I get that Clausen has a rep for being douchey (whether that's fair or not I can't say), but to me in a draft where people are defending Dez Bryant as being TOO GOOD to pass up, I can't fathom how Clausen shouldn't be worth a serious look. If Clausen falls into Buffalo or Jacksonville's laps, it could really set those franchise back in the right direction IMHO.

I haven't posted much about Clausen and I guess I am on the fence. How is this guy so much better than Quinn at this stage of his career? But as to Bradford, are you saying he's worth the #1 selection?

Fair question. I'm not scout, and guys like Cec, Matt and Sigmund pay MUCH closer attention to the nuances, but to me Clausen is much different from Quinn for the simple fact that Quinn is afraid to throw downfield. That's really the gating factor to his success so far, and it's hard to say whether he can change that. Physically, Clausen is every bit the prototype, he also benefits from an entire career in Weis' system (versus Quinn who blossomed in late exposure to it), and thus I see him as more NFL ready and battle tested. I think we need to be careful about lumping every QB from a program or a coaching system with one another. Carson Palmer isn't Matt Leinart isn't Mark Sanchez. Tee Martin isn't Peyton Manning. Look at the Florida State QBs...we're talking a range from Brad Johnson to Danny Kanell to Charlie Ward.We could ask the same thing about McCoy and Bradford, right? Oklahoma had Jason White and Josh Heupel. The Longhorns had Vince Young, sure, but also had Chris Simms and Major Applewhite.

I agree with you Jason but some of those college systems remained the same for years. For example (big U of M fan here), for years we could watch QB's come through the system and if they had the build, you could kind of evaluate and compare what they looked like compared to some of the others such as Elvis Grbac, Tom Brady, Jim Harbaugh and Chad Henne (I feel like I'm forgetting one). They had a similar system to go through. Now, the offense at Michigan will never be the same and comparing a QB that goes through there now to any of those guys is like comparing apples to oranges.I think the fact that Quinn and Clausen had the same coaching staff etc...makes us feel that we can at least kind of compare them, even though we obviously know they're different people.

 

[Dexter Manley]

He still completed 63.4% of his passes against UF. And it's not like it was a blow out and he was seeing a lot of prevent-D at the end to pump up his numbers. That game was a dog fight all 4 quarters.

I know and I still think OU was the better team and should have won that game. It just didn't seem to me like he looked that comfortable handling the pressure, as opposed to a guy like Stafford who had to deal with major pressure most games his last season at Georgia.

Stafford v UF in 2008: 18 of 33 for 265 yards (54.5%) 0 TDs 3 Ints. And a lot of that came after UF built up a 21-3 lead.

I remember watching that game. Stafford played badly, but he had a pretty bad oline and never really had a chance that game, imo.I guess my point is that Stafford was more nfl ready than Bradford, imo. FTR, I really like Bradford and think he's the #1 qb in this class, but it will be interesting to see how he develops in STL after watching Bulger get killed the last 2 years behind that oline.

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

You can talk about "building from the trenches" forever but if the Rams draft Suh they will win 2 or 3 games again and still have no QB.

You could make the same argument against drafting a QB with Detroit and Stafford last year. The Jets have clearly built from the trenches. Sanchez was very much icing on that cake as a rookie last year. San Diego originally built from the trenches, let Rivers develop, and his past two seasons started to work well as the trenches need "re-trenching." Hasselbeck, Brady, Warner, Schaub, Henne, and Romo are all examples of players not drafted early that developed over time. Heck Aaron Rodgers fell out of round one and he might be the most promising QB in the league right now.

I'm in the same line of thinking Matt.Look at the Vikings team of the late 60's early 70's that Dline made the team. The Steel curtains DL made Terry Bradshaw and his pedestrian stats a winner. Tampa Bay Bucs won with Brad Johnson....and a great DL. The Ravens have already been mentioned.Lets look at a recent example....2008 Titans vs the 2009 Haynesworthless Titans.A great DL does more than a QB nowadays b/c of how many solid QB's their are in the league....how many great DL's out there? Not as many.

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

You can talk about "building from the trenches" forever but if the Rams draft Suh they will win 2 or 3 games again and still have no QB.

And then have pick of Locker, Luck, or Mallett next year. I think I'd rather have Suh and QB next year.

If they wait one more year after that they can draft Matt Barkley. I don't know I'm not a fan of the whole "wait until next year and draft QB _____" Two years ago I'm sure a lot of people were saying "Draft Chris Long and wait on Matthew Stafford next year". Last year I'm sure a lot of people were saying "Draft Jason Smith and wait on Sam Bradford next year". The Rams don't have any long term solution at QB. If they think Bradford is a franchise QB, than they should take him.

Cough Jason Campbell cough

 

[doctor_d]

I saw the topic, I have not read all of this thread but I just had to say - I like Bradford but if Dilfer says it may be catastrophic I have to listen. After all, he should know all about that.

 

[Don Quixote]

I generally agree because never know if will have the opportunity again next year, but I was going off the 2 or 3 wins assumption in the previous post, which would guarantee a Top 3 pick. I view Suh as a HOF-type player, and having watched what Spags did with the Giants' D, I think he'd turn the Rams D into one of the best, if not the best, in the league if he had Suh. I'm not sold on Bradford, but maybe others are more so -- I'd put Bradford below Locker and Luck.

The Rams are still one of the least talented teams in the league. They played hard when I watched them and I'm sure Spags will develop a good defense in time, but for now they stink.If you wait until 2011 to draft a QB, is he even going to play that season? They are far away from building a team like NYJ, Balt., Pitt. etc. where a rookie was able to manage games with limited demands placed on him.You can't just keep eating Top 5 guaranteed rookie deals every year, especially when they aren't all great players. (New CBA could reduce these costs in 2011 but you can't blindly hope for that.)I appreciate the Suh-crew's stance that he'd be more likely to start and contribute to the team right away, and may even be the most talented overall player. But as I have said all off-season I think QB should and will be the Rams' pick.

If getting out of the Top 5 in the NFL draft the quickest is the goal, I think Suh would have been the better pick (I say "would have been" because they have let all of the available FA QBs go by, so clearly need a QB now), but I don't think Bradford immediately improves the Rams because not really set up to succeed until he gets more around him.

 

[Christo]

He still completed 63.4% of his passes against UF. And it's not like it was a blow out and he was seeing a lot of prevent-D at the end to pump up his numbers. That game was a dog fight all 4 quarters.

I know and I still think OU was the better team and should have won that game. It just didn't seem to me like he looked that comfortable handling the pressure, as opposed to a guy like Stafford who had to deal with major pressure most games his last season at Georgia.

Stafford v UF in 2008: 18 of 33 for 265 yards (54.5%) 0 TDs 3 Ints. And a lot of that came after UF built up a 21-3 lead.

I remember watching that game. Stafford played badly, but he had a pretty bad oline and never really had a chance that game, imo.I guess my point is that Stafford was more nfl ready than Bradford, imo. FTR, I really like Bradford and think he's the #1 qb in this class, but it will be interesting to see how he develops in STL after watching Bulger get killed the last 2 years behind that oline.

I like Stafford a lot. I tried to grab him in all of my dynasty leagues last year. My point was that looking at a single game against what was probably the most dominant defense in the nation that year is no more indicative of whether a QB will succeed in the NFL than is looking at a QB's play in the blowouts.

 

[Getinthemix]

I wouldn't use the words catastrohpic but I don't think Bradford's going to become a STUD in the NFL. When the season ended, when we first started talking about the draft the idea of a QB going No. 1 overall was almost a longshot possibility. That it seemed to be a slam dunk that it would be Suh.

Over some time, it looked as if Alabama's McCoy was making ground up on Suh and that he was some guys top pick and then Suh No. 2. Then came the workouts and Bradford shot way up the list to almost this sure thing No. 1 and then of course the idea that the Lions made take Okung etc...the possibilities are endless.

Now, this guy comes out and says Bradord isn't all that and tha the Rams should take Suh. To be honest, that is what they should do and I've said that since Day 1.

However, as a Detroit native I want Suh in year badly and cringed when I read what I read in this article. I'll be bummed if the Rams take Suh.

 

[Bob Magaw]

a hypothetical 2010 draft to add playmakers for bradford...

rams have a lot of needs (#31 on defense at about 27 PA average... #32 on offense, i think 10.9 per game)... no wonder STL was 1-15...

if value presents itself, they could look at WR, TE, OL, DE, LB (maybe even DB?)

they could decide to go offense heavy (they added DT robbins and LB diggs, older, unspectacular players, but probable upgrades over who they had last year)...

this is just an exercise in how the supporting cast and surrounding talent could be upgraded in just ONE year, let alone two or three...

trade down about 10 spots from #33 (should have some overnight offers with new format), unless there is somebody they absolutely have to have... add a second 3rd to their existing one...

2nd - WR (benn or thomas - one or both could drop? not as interested in tate)

3rd - TE (hernandez - not sure if he is more commonly viewed a second rounder?)... gresham might go with 2nd, though many have him off the board already... but i wouldn't like WRs as much in 3rd... gronkowski could go in 3rd (or higher, or lower... huge risk/reward, as he has 1st round talent, but may have an early retirement candidate back)...

3rd - RB (mccluster or dwyer* - one or both could drop, not sure how high a 3rd they could get if they drop down in 2nd... dwyer would be the hopeful starting caliber RB if jackson is hurt, that they haven't had... mccluster could be the all purpose weapon they haven't had since??? he could be a great fit, giving team a change of pace RB weapon, wildcat option, receiver out of the backfield & ST returner upgrade... mccluster could be a great fit, best receiving RB on team since faulk in his prime, & with OC shurmur's PHI roots, he could see a smaller westbrook, and design plays to exploit matchup problems with his dangerous receiving ability)

if things break right, this could give bradford three additional weapons...

two would be nice intermediate targets... not only TE, but benn is hulking, could work the middle better than anybody else on the roster, and could be the WR1 that avery would probably make a better complementary WR2 to...

mccluster would be a great dump off option when bradford is blitzed...

* possibly dwyer might drop even further, to 4th (i kind of doubt mccluster does... getting a RB in 4th would come in handy if they don't trade down in 2nd, and get an extra 3rd), after his lumbering (pedestrian would be too generous ), lineman-like 40 time... nonetheless, bloom is very high on him (relatively speaking)... he certainly appears to be the kind of player that plays faster than he times... he probably won't be getting to the corner too often, but i don't think that is his game anyways... this wouldn't be as obvious an immediate help to bradford (if they don't get mccluster), but it could still have positive overall repercussions for offense...

it would keep jackson fresher and reduce wear and tear, would enable the team to pound the ball more, and if jackson does get hurt, offense doesn't need to grind to a screeching halt with a clear upgrade at RB2.. he could also possibly be groomed for larger role in the future... if STL can run better, that could take tremendous pressure off bradford, by creating more favorable down and distance situations, and adding threat/capability of converting third downs by running.

 

[raceguy]

Over some time, it looked as if Alabama's McCoy was making ground up on Suh and that he was some guys top pick and then Suh No. 2.

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

A great DL does more than a QB nowadays b/c of how many solid QB's their are in the league....how many great DL's out there? Not as many.

You're talking '60s and '70s but look at the playoff QBs last year. 9 of the top 10 QBs (depending who you like). Obviously you can't get a full DL with one pick but you can build that in other ways, as the Lions have after drafting Stafford at #1 last year even though they had no good linemen.

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

A great DL does more than a QB nowadays b/c of how many solid QB's their are in the league....how many great DL's out there? Not as many.

You're talking '60s and '70s but look at the playoff QBs last year. 9 of the top 10 QBs (depending who you like). Obviously you can't get a full DL with one pick but you can build that in other ways, as the Lions have after drafting Stafford at #1 last year even though they had no good linemen.

I just believe that the NFL has a lot of good QB's (Manning, Brady, Rodgers, Cutler, Romo, Palmer, Flacco, Ryan, Favre, McNabb, Rivers, Big Ben, Brees, Eli and Schuab). That's 15 QB's out of the 32 starters I think are good(some are great)....6 of them have won at least one super bowl.Then Stafford, Sanchez, Kolb, Henne are all young and not proven....but all could easily bump up.Then a group of underachievers Garrard, Cassel, Vince Young, Matt Leinart, Alex Smith.Then the rest that still have potential but I think could never get into a good category Russell, Trent Edwards, Hasselbeck(too old)/Whitehurst, Freeman, and whomever the Browns throw out there.Lots of good QB's didn't used to be the trend....however with it being such a high paying/attention position....more money has went into developing QB's(in my opinion).Good DL's in the NFL (Vikings and the Steelers are the only two I think of off of the top of my head) Maybe Philly, GB, Dallas, Miami, 49ers....but thats about it. Now most of those teams made the playoffs too. So was it the DL or the QB?Like I said earlier....without Haynesworth and an injured Vandenbosch....the Titans were a much worse team(and thats with a better Chris Johnson). The Vikings were a playoff team already without Favre. Then they add Favre and go to the NFC championship game....I guarantee you take away that great DL and make them average....the Vikings don't win the division.

 

[Hooper31]

As a Seahawk fan, I'm thrilled by the idea of the Rams taking Bradford. It's a massive gamble. Might Bradford be a great franchise QB? Sure, but I feel its more likely to set the Rams back a few more years.

How would you feel if you knew your division rival was going to take Bradford #1 overall and throw him to the wolves?

 

[Bob Magaw]

The Vikings were a playoff team already without Favre. Then they add Favre and go to the NFC championship game....I guarantee you take away that great DL and make them average....the Vikings don't win the division.

whoa...suh is one player...how many years did it take MIN to amass kevin williams, pat williams, jared allen & ray edwards?taking bradford doesn't preclude taking other DL in the future...pat was a UFA, and than i think a free agent... allen was a 4th rounder (?)... he than changed teams via a trade...

 

[jurb26]

As a Seahawk fan, I'm thrilled by the idea of the Rams taking Bradford. It's a massive gamble. Might Bradford be a great franchise QB? Sure, but I feel its more likely to set the Rams back a few more years.How would you feel if you knew your division rival was going to take Bradford #1 overall and throw him to the wolves?

I agree. I like Bradford and think he is a good prospect but he is a reach at the #1 overall pick IMO. He isn't a top 10 player in this draft nor a franchise QB if you ask me. The thing about QBs however is that if a team does see a guy who THEY think is a franchise QB, reaching and moving up for him isn't a big deal. You simply don't want to risk missing out on the guy if you are within striking distance to getting him. If St.L drafts him then they undoubtedly see him as a franchise QB and while I don't agree with it I can't really have a problem with that ether.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

As a Seahawk fan, I'm thrilled by the idea of the Rams taking Bradford. It's a massive gamble. Might Bradford be a great franchise QB? Sure, but I feel its more likely to set the Rams back a few more years.How would you feel if you knew your division rival was going to take Bradford #1 overall and throw him to the wolves?

I agree. I like Bradford and think he is a good prospect but he is a reach at the #1 overall pick IMO. He isn't a top 10 player in this draft nor a franchise QB if you ask me.

I don't think saying that you like Bradford and he's a good prospect but then saying he's not a top 10 player works nor is he a franchise QB. How much can you like the guy and how good of a prospect do you think he is then if he can't be a franchise QB?The guy is possibly the NO. 1 overall pick, and if not there then soon after. So do you like him (because that's where you need to like him) or not?By reading your post, I am guessing that you don't like him at that spot but it's hard for me to believe you think he's actually a good prospect if you don't believe he can be a good franchise QB. You're basically calling this guy a bust (which is fine, he may be).

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

The Vikings were a playoff team already without Favre. Then they add Favre and go to the NFC championship game....I guarantee you take away that great DL and make them average....the Vikings don't win the division.

whoa...suh is one player...how many years did it take MIN to amass kevin williams, pat williams, jared allen & ray edwards?taking bradford doesn't preclude taking other DL in the future...pat was a UFA, and than i think a free agent... allen was a 4th rounder (?)... he than changed teams via a trade...

I'm well aware of how that DL formed(Bears fan).However would Suh step up Carricker(SP) and Chris Long's games? Three high first round picks on DL....plus Spagnola.....I would think they could be at least a good DL.But the argument was DT vs QB

 

[Steelfan7]

The Vikings were a playoff team already without Favre. Then they add Favre and go to the NFC championship game....I guarantee you take away that great DL and make them average....the Vikings don't win the division.

whoa...suh is one player...how many years did it take MIN to amass kevin williams, pat williams, jared allen & ray edwards?taking bradford doesn't preclude taking other DL in the future...pat was a UFA, and than i think a free agent... allen was a 4th rounder (?)... he than changed teams via a trade...

I'm well aware of how that DL formed(Bears fan).However would Suh step up Carricker(SP) and Chris Long's games? Three high first round picks on DL....plus Spagnola.....I would think they could be at least a good DL.But the argument was DT vs QB

If they are equal prospects then give me the guy who has the ball in his hand for every offensive snap over a DL who can be negated some by double teaming and also is probably rotated out some during the course of the game to help keep him fresh.

 

[jurb26]

As a Seahawk fan, I'm thrilled by the idea of the Rams taking Bradford. It's a massive gamble. Might Bradford be a great franchise QB? Sure, but I feel its more likely to set the Rams back a few more years.How would you feel if you knew your division rival was going to take Bradford #1 overall and throw him to the wolves?

I agree. I like Bradford and think he is a good prospect but he is a reach at the #1 overall pick IMO. He isn't a top 10 player in this draft nor a franchise QB if you ask me.

I don't think saying that you like Bradford and he's a good prospect but then saying he's not a top 10 player works nor is he a franchise QB. How much can you like the guy and how good of a prospect do you think he is then if he can't be a franchise QB?The guy is possibly the NO. 1 overall pick, and if not there then soon after. So do you like him (because that's where you need to like him) or not?By reading your post, I am guessing that you don't like him at that spot but it's hard for me to believe you think he's actually a good prospect if you don't believe he can be a good franchise QB. You're basically calling this guy a bust (which is fine, he may be).

I'm not calling him a bust. I'm simply saying that I don't think he is a franchise caliber QB or prospect. IMO only franchise caliber QBs should be taken in the top 10 picks (especially top pick overall). I say that meaning if I were running a team that is how I would look at it because of the risk involved. Any player taken in the 1st round is a good prospect, especially a player taken in the 1st 16 picks. I think Bradford is certainly worthy of being taken in that range. I think Bradford is a good prospect and can be a good NFL QB but that he will never carry a team and I don't see him as a Pro Bowl caliber player. I think he can become a decent starter though. Becoming a decent starter is not a bust. If you want to view my opinion as that then so be it, but that is not what I'm saying in the least. I think he is overrated and has been for over a year now and I've gone on and on about this in the past when it was the Stafford vs. Bradford debate. Just because someone doesn't like where the masses have slated a player doesn't mean that they are saying he is a bust. Like I said above, I simply think there are at least 10 better players in this draft and he isn't a franchise QB. I'd rate G. McCoy, Suh, Okung, Berry, McClain, A. Davis, Bulaga, Haden, Pierre-Paul and Morgan ahead of him for sure. I'm still not convinced that he is a better prospect than Clausen too.

 

[lyon812]

As a Seahawk fan, I'm thrilled by the idea of the Rams taking Bradford. It's a massive gamble. Might Bradford be a great franchise QB? Sure, but I feel its more likely to set the Rams back a few more years.How would you feel if you knew your division rival was going to take Bradford #1 overall and throw him to the wolves?

I agree. I like Bradford and think he is a good prospect but he is a reach at the #1 overall pick IMO. He isn't a top 10 player in this draft nor a franchise QB if you ask me.

I don't think saying that you like Bradford and he's a good prospect but then saying he's not a top 10 player works nor is he a franchise QB. How much can you like the guy and how good of a prospect do you think he is then if he can't be a franchise QB?The guy is possibly the NO. 1 overall pick, and if not there then soon after. So do you like him (because that's where you need to like him) or not?By reading your post, I am guessing that you don't like him at that spot but it's hard for me to believe you think he's actually a good prospect if you don't believe he can be a good franchise QB. You're basically calling this guy a bust (which is fine, he may be).

I'm not calling him a bust. I'm simply saying that I don't think he is a franchise caliber QB or prospect. IMO only franchise caliber QBs should be taken in the top 10 picks (especially top pick overall). I say that meaning if I were running a team that is how I would look at it because of the risk involved. Any player taken in the 1st round is a good prospect, especially a player taken in the 1st 16 picks. I think Bradford is certainly worthy of being taken in that range. I think Bradford is a good prospect and can be a good NFL QB but that he will never carry a team and I don't see him as a Pro Bowl caliber player. I think he can become a decent starter though. Becoming a decent starter is not a bust. If you want to view my opinion as that then so be it, but that is not what I'm saying in the least. I think he is overrated and has been for over a year now and I've gone on and on about this in the past when it was the Stafford vs. Bradford debate. Just because someone doesn't like where the masses have slated a player doesn't mean that they are saying he is a bust. Like I said above, I simply think there are at least 10 better players in this draft and he isn't a franchise QB. I'd rate G. McCoy, Suh, Okung, Berry, McClain, A. Davis, Bulaga, Haden, Pierre-Paul and Morgan ahead of him for sure. I'm still not convinced that he is a better prospect than Clausen too.

I don't completely agree with all of the people you have ahead of him, but this is a good post. It seems like people struggle with the concept of "He's a good prospect, but not a #1 overall prospect" when it comes to Bradford--hell, with QBs in particular.

 

[JohnnyU]

What the hell does Dilfer know, he's a bum who piggy backed his way to a ring and was released the next season. I wouldn't put a lot into what Trent Dilfer says.

 

[Bob Magaw]

The Vikings were a playoff team already without Favre. Then they add Favre and go to the NFC championship game....I guarantee you take away that great DL and make them average....the Vikings don't win the division.

whoa...suh is one player...how many years did it take MIN to amass kevin williams, pat williams, jared allen & ray edwards?taking bradford doesn't preclude taking other DL in the future...pat was a UFA, and than i think a free agent... allen was a 4th rounder (?)... he than changed teams via a trade...

I'm well aware of how that DL formed(Bears fan).However would Suh step up Carricker(SP) and Chris Long's games? Three high first round picks on DL....plus Spagnola.....I would think they could be at least a good DL.But the argument was DT vs QB

i was responding to the argument... take away that great DL...suh doesn't equate to an entire DL...kind of like (though not as bad), if i said... the 49ers in the montana/young era wouldn't have been nearly as good if you took the entire offense away... so they should take bradford... seriously, carriker has missed a lot of time, and if he isn't already a medical bust, is close... the team has to be disappointed with him, and i don't see how they could even know what they have in him, or be confident he will turn his career around and become a star... carriker is playing out of position, probably best suited for 3-4 DE (rams have a troubled history of trying to convert players like crouch from QB to WR, QB bellisari to S... carriker has been turned from a 4-3 DE to DT)... he is strong for a DE, but not necessarily for a DT... i hope i am wrong about him, but he hasn't inspired a lot of hope even when healthy.long is typical of young DL, in that it can take a year or two for the light to come on... he had a promising second half... he hasn't flahed as much talent as jared allen yet...i do think suh could be a pro bowler, but imo i don't think the rest of the rams DL stacks up well against their MIN counterparts, so i don't see him elevating them to the vikings level. if carriker and long truly are great players, they can plug in another DT (if not as great as suh) in the future, and have a stout DL...my point was also that you don't necessarily have to spend a #1 overall pick on a DT to amass a great DL (pat williams UFA, allen a 4th, i think, and acquired from original teams after free agency & trade... of course, warner & romo were UFAs)...rams have taken a linemen three years in a row (smith, long & carriker), four of past five (barron) & five of past seven (kennedy)... kennedy is off the team, barron probably not far behind, carriker could be a bust... they don't have a lot to show for their investment...when was the last time they took a 1st round QB? 1964? they did trade two 1sts for everett, and they obviously did well with UFA warner and former 6th bulger, for a while. the consensus is that the rams erred badly in not taking ryan or sanchez... some scouts think bradford compares favorably to them...are the rams worse on offense or defense?at 10.9, they are dead last in offense, and only three teams (OAK, CLE & TB) are even within 5 pts...on defense, they are 31st (27.3 - DET last at 30.9)... within five points of giving up less points, are 10 teams (in descending order of ineptitude... NYG, KC, TEN, TB, MIA, SEA, JAX, OAK, CLE & CHI). lastly, spags, if he is truly a defensive wizard, may be more likely to turn lemons into lemonade via scheming and game planning (that was the rationale, anyways), not to mention coaching players up, and putting them in a better position to succeed. i'm less sure about his ability to pull this off on offense... thus the best way to turn around that side, is to start dramtically upgrading the talent on that side of the ball...

 

[JohnnyU]

As a Seahawk fan, I'm thrilled by the idea of the Rams taking Bradford. It's a massive gamble. Might Bradford be a great franchise QB? Sure, but I feel its more likely to set the Rams back a few more years.How would you feel if you knew your division rival was going to take Bradford #1 overall and throw him to the wolves?

I agree. I like Bradford and think he is a good prospect but he is a reach at the #1 overall pick IMO. He isn't a top 10 player in this draft nor a franchise QB if you ask me.

I don't think saying that you like Bradford and he's a good prospect but then saying he's not a top 10 player works nor is he a franchise QB. How much can you like the guy and how good of a prospect do you think he is then if he can't be a franchise QB?The guy is possibly the NO. 1 overall pick, and if not there then soon after. So do you like him (because that's where you need to like him) or not?By reading your post, I am guessing that you don't like him at that spot but it's hard for me to believe you think he's actually a good prospect if you don't believe he can be a good franchise QB. You're basically calling this guy a bust (which is fine, he may be).

I'm not calling him a bust. I'm simply saying that I don't think he is a franchise caliber QB or prospect. IMO only franchise caliber QBs should be taken in the top 10 picks (especially top pick overall). I say that meaning if I were running a team that is how I would look at it because of the risk involved. Any player taken in the 1st round is a good prospect, especially a player taken in the 1st 16 picks. I think Bradford is certainly worthy of being taken in that range. I think Bradford is a good prospect and can be a good NFL QB but that he will never carry a team and I don't see him as a Pro Bowl caliber player. I think he can become a decent starter though. Becoming a decent starter is not a bust. If you want to view my opinion as that then so be it, but that is not what I'm saying in the least. I think he is overrated and has been for over a year now and I've gone on and on about this in the past when it was the Stafford vs. Bradford debate. Just because someone doesn't like where the masses have slated a player doesn't mean that they are saying he is a bust. Like I said above, I simply think there are at least 10 better players in this draft and he isn't a franchise QB. I'd rate G. McCoy, Suh, Okung, Berry, McClain, A. Davis, Bulaga, Haden, Pierre-Paul and Morgan ahead of him for sure. I'm still not convinced that he is a better prospect than Clausen too.

I disagree. I think he is a franchise caliber QB, but his shoulder does scare me. He hurt it right away after coming back from the first injury. I worry the same thing will happen when big and fast NFL DEs pound on it.

 

[Tau837]

What the hell does Dilfer know, he's a bum who piggy backed his way to a ring and was released the next season. I wouldn't put a lot into what Trent Dilfer says.

Why do people think because Dilfer wasn't a great NFL QB his opinion on NFL QBs is invalid?